Nothing is by chance

×

Playback / Television Justice

In an article for Folha titled ‘Nothing is by chance’, the lawyer Augusto de Arruda Botelho attacks live broadcasts of the plenary sessions of the Supreme Court on TV Justiça.

Remember that Marco Aurélio Mello was the one who sanctioned, as acting president on May 17, 2002, law 10.461 / 02, of the then federal deputy Chiquinho Feitosa.

For those who do not know, Chiquinho becomes the first substitute for Senator Tasso Jereissati (PSDB) and president of the DEM in Ceará. He is the brother-in-law of Gilmar Mendes and father-in-law of Caio Rocha, son of César Asfor Rocha, former president of the STJ.

Asfor is being investigated on suspicion of having received a bribe to bury the Castelo de Areia operation, in a scheme that, according to Antonio Palocci, would have been coordinated by Márcio Thomaz Bastos.

César and Caio were also reported by Lava Jato do Rio in Operation E $ burns S, which investigates the diversion of R $ 150 million from the Rio S System through Fecomércio-RJ front contracts with large law firms that would sell influence. at STJ and TCU.

Chiquinho, who dominates public transport in the North and Northeast regions, is a partner of Jacob Barata Filho, Rio’s ‘bus king’, condemned by Marcelo Bretas in the context of Operation Ponto Final, deployment of Lava Jato.

In the investigations, the MPF found that Fetranspor paid R $ 144 million in bribes to Sergio Cabral and other Rio politicians. The employer used the same money changer (Álvaro Novis) and the same carriers (Transexpert and Prosegur) as Odebrecht.

By the way, Botelho was a junior lawyer in Thomaz Bastos’s office and was part of the Odebrecht defense team at Lava Jato.

But let’s go back to the question of TV Justiça, whose broadcasts in that distant 2002 seemed harmless.

Botelho states that there is currently a “Overexposure of ministers”, what “They just can’t go to restaurants, they can’t even go outside for fear of being hit”. The lawyer is distressed by “Such hatred on the part of the population towards our Supreme Court”.

As for going to restaurants or going out, it is worth remembering the discussion between Joaquim Barbosa and Gilmar Mendes, back in 2009.

Disse Barbosa: “Are you destroying the justice of that country and now you come to teach me a moral lesson? Go outside, Minister Gilmar. Get out there, do what I do. “ To which Gilmar replied: “I’m on the street, Minister Joaquim.” Barbosa replied: “His Excellency is not on the street, no. You are in the media, destroying the credibility of the Brazilian judiciary ”.

As for the overexposure, it was certainly not caused by TV Justiça, which continues to have zero audience on Ibope.

The test of the monthly allowance, in 2012, obviously caught the attention of the press and society in general. Lava Jato deepened this dynamic once and for all, with dozens of big business and political bosses who had to go to the Supreme Court almost daily to escape from jail.

Meanwhile, social media has also gained prominence in public debate, breaking the monopoly of the press and polarizing politics. If we live youm “eternal fla-flu in our Justice”, as Botelho observes, the same thing happens in politics, in the press, etc.

Being exposed on social media is far from the privilege of Supreme Court ministers.

If the networks gave voice to a legion of imbeciles, according to Umberto Eco, they also fed a critical mass in relation to the almost absolute absence of convictions of politicians by the STF.

The impunity of those who had privileged jurisdiction was evident in the face of hundreds of convictions in the first instance.

Rui Barbosa also taught that late justice is nothing more than an institutionalized injustice. OR “Such hatred” What the former Odebrecht lawyer refers to may be due to society’s frustration with the Supreme Court. Maybe.

The swing of the positions of the ministers of the Court, adjusting the jurisprudence to the occasion, certainly contributed to this general feeling – see the case of incarceration after a conviction in second instance.

Gilmar, who defended Lava Jato against the “PT kleptocracy,” became an executioner after the task force advanced on toucans.

In his attack on TV Justiça, Botelho also claims that there is no longer a vote in the Supreme Court to learn more about Justice or learn more about law, but to “cheer.” “We have ideological and partisan expectations of a trial,” writes the lawyer.

Again, the same applies to certain ministers who defend strange theses for the benefit of political agents who were responsible or helped in their appointments to the Supreme Court.

It must also be said that avoiding free access, through TV Justiça, to the sentences of the highest court in the country is also a social injustice.

It is surprising to have to reiterate that any measure against the transparency of the acts of public power is, in principle, an anti-republican and anti-democratic measure.

“The best detergent is sunlight,” taught us US Justice Louis Brandeis (1856-1941), who was a member of the US Supreme Court.

For these tropics, however, the understanding seems otherwise. The Supreme Court, which keeps the bizarre investigation of fake news confidential, has had 700 undercover proceedings and ministers rarely publicize their hearings with lawyers.

Finally, it is noteworthy that the transmissions of the plenary sessions of the Supreme Court come into debate just after Luiz Fux decided to transfer the trial of criminal actions and the opening of investigations from the Classes – whose hearings are not broadcast in real time – to the Plenary Session. .

As Botelho says, nothing is by chance. Same.

More news